On 08/08/11 13:09 +0200, Nicolas Évrard wrote: > * Cédric Krier [2011-08-08 11:48 +0200]: > >On 08/08/11 11:35 +0200, Nicolas Évrard wrote: > >>* Cédric Krier [2011-08-08 11:19 +0200]: > >>>On 08/08/11 10:56 +0200, Nicolas Évrard wrote: > >>>>We could define a policy for those and treat them as data in the > >>>>setup.py file. > >>> > >>>I never saw any packages (not only Python packages) that install them self > >>>this kind of files. > >> > >>This is not an issue. If we decide that this is data, then it is. > > > >The distribution maintainer will have issues as many of the distribution has > >policies about where to put such informations. > > If those are data then I don't see why distribution would handle those > differently then the images or xml files. Afterwards if they want to > do stuff with those files (like putting them in the > /usr/share/doc/<package-name> like debian do), it is up to them ...
(This following is not directly in response of this email but I must be in the thread flow) I find this discussion going nowhere. Instead of simplify the system, now proposal comes to make it more and more complex and bloated, just to display informations that are available on website (PyPI, Tryton Services page) and in the source packages. All this is completly against the KISS principle, we try to apply in Tryton, in the name of "marketing god". With the same concervative behavior we will never remove the "zipped modules", "netrpc", "ir.default" etc. PS: If 3 years ago, I had thought a little further, when forking the __openerp__.py, I would have remove it (in the same time as "licence", "installable", "active", "category" etc.) and nobody will complain about it missing. -- Cédric Krier B2CK SPRL Rue de Rotterdam, 4 4000 Liège Belgium Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Email/Jabber: [email protected] Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgpguQsGuyN0b.pgp
Description: PGP signature
